Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US Court nullifies FTC requirement for click-to-cancel

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 599 posts

Re: US Court nullifies FTC requirement for click-to-cancel

#351

Post by pbh101 »

trueismywork wrote: post #161
beezlewax wrote: post #111

I've used a learning platform called Brilliant in the past. The cancellation process was so convoluted that it was impossible to cancel the account. Dark patterns and confusing language. They refused to refund me and after I thought I'd cancelled and I had to run a charge back from my bank. This is nefarious behaviour on their part and consumers need to be protected from it.

In contrast in EU, I sent an email to my service to cancel and they forgot to cancel. I just sent them another email with proof of email and they realised they missed the old one and canceled retroactively and refunded money to my account.

This has not been my experience cancelling eu services.

Re: US Court nullifies FTC requirement for click-to-cancel

#353

Post by zaphar »

sophacles wrote: post #304
giingyui wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Courts don’t only serve consumers and citizens. They also have to serve corporations. This is not a flippant remark; corporations also have rights to defend.

Who the fuck cares? Seriously - a corporation is a piece of paper that separates ownership from responsibility. It's already a fucking stupid idea - You're deeply liable if you can't keep you trees maintained, or your car under control, but if you can't control you company, it's no problem? We hand out these get-out-of-trouble cards to the type of useless trash that destroy lives (see pollution, workplace safety, dan…

Then get legislation through congress to change it. The courts are not there to fix legislation unless it is superseded by other higher legal authorities. Such as the constitution national or state. Current legislation gives them corporations rights. If you think that is wrong then the way to change it is to get people elected who can change that legislation.

Re: US Court nullifies FTC requirement for click-to-cancel

#354

Post by rochak »

bluetidepro wrote: post #337

Slightly related: For all the crap the iOS store gets for many (good) reasons, this is one reason I actually LOVE to buy subscriptions through iOS/Apple when that option is available for a platform. They have the most simple cancellation process to manage all your subscriptions in one place. Sometimes it costs a $1 or more to buy through iOS but it's worth it to easily cancel without any hoops.

Absolutely! I’m at a stage where I prefer to buy a subscription via Apple. It’s so simple to cancel. Not to mention how quick Apple is in general refunding any of the wrong/unsatisfactory purchases.

Re: US Court nullifies FTC requirement for click-to-cancel

#355

Post by dontlikeyoueith »

rayiner wrote: post #242
John23832 wrote: post #236

What consumer does this serve at all? What citizen does this serve at all? This only serves to allow firms to erect effort barriers to keep rent seeking fro their customers. The "gotcha" that the Khan FTC didn't "follow the rules making process" is parallel construction.

Courts don’t make decisions on whether executive rules are told or bad, serve consumers or not. The main oversight they have is ensuring compliance with procedural rules and statutory technicalities.

> Courts don’t make decisions on whether executive rules are told or bad, serve consumers or not

This is just an obvious lie.

They're not supposed to, but they obviously do. Usually against common citizens' interest.

Re: US Court nullifies FTC requirement for click-to-cancel

#357

Post by singleshot_ »

evilduck wrote: post #231
sneak wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the FTC can’t do what the FTC is supposed to do, then that is the FTC’s fault for continuing to exist. It’s unfit for purpose and should be shut down.

The FTC have no say in choosing to exist or not exist, or what laws are passed that they are supposed to enforce. In some cases, an agency intentionally choosing to not carry out their duties would even be breaking the law and subject to penalty or punishment. How the FTC goes about interpreting their duties and then the court system correcting their behavior when they disagree or misbehave is the system working as i…

While it’s correct to assert the FTC can’t choose to ignore its enabling act, it’s false to say: 1) the FTC has no say in the laws they are supposed to enforce 2) Congress controls the laws the FTC is tasked with enforcing.

As to 1, the FTC writes the laws it enforces. These laws are called regulations. As to 2, of course Congress could write laws that have to be enforced, but when it comes to regulatory agencies, Congress does quite the opposite. Instead of writing the laws concerning trade, Congress wrote an enabling act delegating this authority to the agency.

Calling for the replacement of a branch of government without understanding any of this would be avoidable with a better educational system.

Re: US Court nullifies FTC requirement for click-to-cancel

#359

Post by hiAndrewQuinn »

GolfPopper wrote: post #326
hiAndrewQuinn wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The standard capitalist response would be, it serves the consumer of a service who wouldn't be willing to pay more for the additional guarantee of click-to-cancel. It doesn't seem that farfetched to me to imagine two sites offering equivalent services, one at $5/month and the other at $6/month, with the only difference being the $6/month site offers click to cancel. This dollar price difference is often the differenc…

What's described here is really just legalized thievery with extra steps. "We make it difficult to stop paying us" versus "we charge extra for the privilege of not making it difficult to stop paying us" is just fraud versus extortion. That one or both may be technically legal is no excuse.

It's not legalized thievery to make it nonfree to exit a contract you voluntarily signed up for in the first place. That's ridiculous and hyperbolic.

People do it all the time, at all levels of scale and severity. You might as well take issue with the US government not having a "click to cancel" option on NATO or something.

Re: US Court nullifies FTC requirement for click-to-cancel

#360

Post by barbazoo »

John23832 wrote: post #236

What consumer does this serve at all? What citizen does this serve at all? This only serves to allow firms to erect effort barriers to keep rent seeking fro their customers. The "gotcha" that the Khan FTC didn't "follow the rules making process" is parallel construction.

Companies are people too! And after all they are the biggest donors so this actually serves exactly who it's supposed to.
Post reply on HN